Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ravensfan4life

FF Legal Issue

Recommended Posts

We have an issue in our league. During trades, we have a 1 day period where an agreed upon trade is pending. The league can veto the trade during that time. The traders cannot retract their trade during this time.

 

Recently, Dwayne Bowe was traded for Forsett. Toward the end of the trade's pending period, it was announced that Dwayne Bowe was suspended and the team that traded Forsett wanted to retract the trade. The trade did not get vetoed and went through but the Forsett trader wants a special retraction done by the commissioner because of the circumstances.

 

What do you think? I will post some arguements made on our message board. The arguements are being made lawyer style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguement for trade to stay:

 

Joe,

 

Where do you draw the line? Are you saying because the trade was still pending for a day that you should be able to retract the trade?

 

What if a week had gone by or two weeks?

 

Can I ask for Ryan Moats back now that I know Peppers has a broken hand?

 

The contract is entered at the time that both sides agree to the decision. Neither of you had unfair information. Mike was not cheating you. There was nothing asymmetrical about the transaction. Things changed as they often do. What's important is that at the time of the agreement both parties were on an even level and making educated decisions regarding what they thought was best for the future.

 

I think most of the league saw the trade. To assert that "no one cared" just a week after my trade was voted down because people thought it was unfair doesn't make much sense. The reason my second trade went through could have been for a number of reasons. I explained I was of sound mind and body. I explained why I didn't need Moats and wanted a good defender. I got a better defender than Suggs. I think people saw your trade, as I did, and chose not to vote against it because the motivations and the benefits of both sides could be seen.

 

I was thinking how much I wished I had traded for Bowe, considering I thought you were getting a better deal. No one could have predicted this and even if they could have, it still would have been fair assuming both parties had the same information available to them.

 

What if Julius Jones made a speedy recovery and came back this weekend? Would you still consider Mike as getting fair value?

 

I wouldn't

 

Sincerely,

 

Welfare Tyranny

 

 

 

Argument against trade

 

 

Bill - not making any argument about what happens down the line days or weeks after a trade. I obviously wouldn't try to undo the trade if this had happened next week since it's all part of the game. What I'm saying is that if something comes out of nowhere during a pending trade - sudden injury, suspension - which is a period of a day - there should be just cause to cancel a trade that has sudden lopsided value as a result. It has nothing to do with being indecisive and wouldn't lead down the slippery slope as they say to people agreeing to a trade and then changing their mind and whining to the league and the commish to cancel - it has everything to do with an uncontrolled circumstance that fundamentally changes the nature of a trade.

 

It's a rare situation, but I'm surprised you don't agree - if a non-football related freak injury or suspension that no one saw coming happened to a player I was about to trade there's no way I would try to force the trade through to the unwilling owner. Assuming risk with injured or injury-prone players is part of trades - if I traded for Brian Westbrook right now and found out during the pending period that he's out for the year I wouldn't have a very good case to make since I knew about it and agreed to assume that risk beforehand. I think this is a different situation.

 

I'd argue against you that a pending trade is a finalized contract: I looked up pending online as "remaining undecided; awaiting decision or settlement; unfinished: pending business; pending questions; pending litigation.

 

And check this out - "Misrepresentation" on wikipedia, apparently one of the four ways a contract can be voided.

 

"Learned Falsity"

 

Should a statement be made which is true at the time, but subsequently becomes untrue due to a change in circumstances, the representor is obligated to amend the original statement. In With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch. 575, the plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase O’Flanagan’s medical practice. During negotiations it was said that the practice produced an income of £2000 per year. Before the contract was signed, the practice took a downward turn and lost a significant amount of value. After the contract had been entered into the true nature of the practice was discovered and the plaintiff took action in misrepresentation. In his decision, Lord Wright said "...a representation made as a matter of inducement to enter into a contract is to be treated as a continuing representation."[4]. This means that the representation must be true till the contract is made; creating the obligation mentioned above and accordingly the plaintiff’s petition was successful.

 

 

Like Mark just said, I entered into a pending trade with the normal expectation that Bowe would play, and before the trade was completed I found out he wouldn't be, so the deal should be off.

 

I'm taking this ###### to Commissioner's Court - ch. 54 - and I challenge you and Mike, in prep for your law school careers, to stop me.

 

Joey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless there is something specifically in the rules stating that if a player status changes while the trade is in the "pending" status then the trade can be rescinded then it is completely up to the owner that received Forsett. He can give the guy back Forsett or he can keep him, completely up to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebuttal in favor of trade

 

 

Opinion by the Honorable Chief Justice William Rueter

 

Citing- Mr. Lord Wright’s Opinion in With v. O'Flanagan:

“…material alteration in the position had taken place between the date of those representations and the date at which the contract was completed and they have also established that no communication was made by Dr. O’Flanagan or anybody on his behalf of that change of circumstances. But that all the facts were known to either Dr. O’Flanagan or his agent I have no doubt at all.”

 

Also, in your description of the case you say “Before the contract was signed, the practice took a downward turn and lost a significant amount of value.” This is different from the instance between you and Mike where essentially you both “signed” the contract when you agreed to the trade.

 

While you are correct that in the case of Mowell v. Kirby a material altercation took place, there was no reason to expect Mike had any more knowledge than you did about the change. Your case contains no “misrepresentation” since Mike is as innocent as you are relative to knowing anything about a change in circumstances. Unlike With v. O’ Flanagan, the asymmetry of information did not exist and therefore it was a fair transaction. Representation was true throughout the duration of the case, circumstances changed but they were not misrepresented.

 

Your definition of pending as “remaining undecided; awaiting decision or settlement; unfinished: pending business; pending questions; pending litigation” has very little to do with the agreement between you and Mike and much more to do with deferral to arbitration or regulation, i.e. to a court, an authority, a regulator. Involvement by you and Mike in the process of the contract was completed when “accept trade” was clicked. At that time you assume all risks, liabilities, and benefits of the trade. All that remains is for the governing body to approve or disprove of the trade.

 

Why would there be a pending period for a trade for any other reason than review by another party? People to not enter trades or contracts to wait for a few days until they are really sure they want to do it. They don’t sign contracts so that during a pending period of a few days they can be sure a natural disaster doesn’t strike. In Mowell v. Kirby, the governing body, the league, approved the trade and the controversy only stems from the arbitrary choice of the length of the approval period. The controversy is not that information was hidden or that the agreement was unfair. You signed the contract. All that remained was for the league to ensure it was executed in good faith and in fairness.

I do not believe the league should have the power to go back and retroactively change the trade because it is now “unfair” after the agreement. To do so is to rule on a different trade entirely. The league has to consider the case as it was agreed upon, or the problem of retroactive league intervention is indeed a problem. As it was agreed upon the trade was fair, mutually beneficial, and in good faith, anything that changed is not for the league to retroactively “fix”. That is something to work out between you and Mr. Kirby.

 

I find this an enjoyable debate and I’ll hope to look for a few legal opinions later, but class in 10 minutes means its time to go.

 

Is my position really surprising based on my team name? Why would I give a governing body the power to make decisions for us?

 

Sincerely,

 

Welfare Tyranny

 

 

 

rebuttal against trade

 

 

 

Well on looking at the particular case again I think you did a good job arguing it – it doesn't really support my cause. I would have said that the misrepresentation came into play because Bowe had the suspension looming for most of the season and it was just a matter of time before it took effect – therefore, while I had a reasonable expectation of getting a player who would be in my lineup for giving one away, I was actually buying damaged goods before the contract had been made, which I found out about the next day.

 

But I could find other things that support the same idea I tried to express that the trade was made unfair due to a freak occurrence, and that my immediate attempt to notify Mike and the commissioner during the pending period did nothing, so that now we have to argue it out after the fact. Check out “implied warranty”:

 

a contract law term for certain assurances that are presumed to be made in the sale of products or real property, due to the circumstances of the sale. These assurances are characterized as warranties irrespective of whether the seller has expressly promised them orally or in writing. They include an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, an implied warranty of merchantability for products, implied warranty of workmanlike quality for services, and an implied warranty of habitability for a home.

 

An implied warranty is one that arises from the nature of the transaction, and the inherent understanding by the buyer, rather than from the express representations of the seller.

 

The warranty of merchantability: “For example, a fruit that looks and smells good but has hidden defects would violate the implied warranty of merchantability if its quality does not meet the standards for such fruit "as passes ordinarily in the trade"”.

 

So the real issue at stake is if the consumer has any power to correct a deal that turned out to be significantly unfair to them. I am saying, during the pending period, they should have every right to do so. You're right in arguing that a contract was made and that both parties assumed the risks, so that the contract cannot be void as if there was shady dealing, but that's not what I'm arguing – I'm saying that the contract is voidable – able to be cancelled, because after the contract was made and before the goods were delivered the fairness of the trade had changed. That's what the league has always voted on - apparent fairness. It's silly to say that votes should ignore the latest injury or suspension news and try to date to the time the agreement was reached, which is only known to the person who accepts the offer anyway.

 

To me the issue with this trade is really how to protect, and if it is possible to protect, the individual owner from being screwed over during the pending period of a trade, and given your political stance against bureaucratic inefficiency I'm sure you can relate. “Why would I give a governing body the power to make decisions for us?” you say, and I agree completely: why would I have to be dependent on league votes to recognize my trade has been made unfair when I can see it right away? The voting system in this case missed the boat by not voting just as it did in your original trade to Mike by voting, and that's why we have this forum to air our grievances, have other people weigh in, and ultimately take it to the commissioner's decision. Two league members have already agreed with my stance that I have a reasonable cause to have the trade called off. I am finding the argument here interesting and getting Forsett back will probably be hugely anticlimactic, but I think it's a mistake if it doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebuttal in favor of trade

 

 

Opinion by the Honorable Chief Justice William Rueter

 

Citing- Mr. Lord Wright’s Opinion in With v. O'Flanagan:

“…material alteration in the position had taken place between the date of those representations and the date at which the contract was completed and they have also established that no communication was made by Dr. O’Flanagan or anybody on his behalf of that change of circumstances. But that all the facts were known to either Dr. O’Flanagan or his agent I have no doubt at all.”

 

Also, in your description of the case you say “Before the contract was signed, the practice took a downward turn and lost a significant amount of value.” This is different from the instance between you and Mike where essentially you both “signed” the contract when you agreed to the trade.

 

While you are correct that in the case of Mowell v. Kirby a material altercation took place, there was no reason to expect Mike had any more knowledge than you did about the change. Your case contains no “misrepresentation” since Mike is as innocent as you are relative to knowing anything about a change in circumstances. Unlike With v. O’ Flanagan, the asymmetry of information did not exist and therefore it was a fair transaction. Representation was true throughout the duration of the case, circumstances changed but they were not misrepresented.

 

Your definition of pending as “remaining undecided; awaiting decision or settlement; unfinished: pending business; pending questions; pending litigation” has very little to do with the agreement between you and Mike and much more to do with deferral to arbitration or regulation, i.e. to a court, an authority, a regulator. Involvement by you and Mike in the process of the contract was completed when “accept trade” was clicked. At that time you assume all risks, liabilities, and benefits of the trade. All that remains is for the governing body to approve or disprove of the trade.

 

Why would there be a pending period for a trade for any other reason than review by another party? People to not enter trades or contracts to wait for a few days until they are really sure they want to do it. They don’t sign contracts so that during a pending period of a few days they can be sure a natural disaster doesn’t strike. In Mowell v. Kirby, the governing body, the league, approved the trade and the controversy only stems from the arbitrary choice of the length of the approval period. The controversy is not that information was hidden or that the agreement was unfair. You signed the contract. All that remained was for the league to ensure it was executed in good faith and in fairness.

I do not believe the league should have the power to go back and retroactively change the trade because it is now “unfair” after the agreement. To do so is to rule on a different trade entirely. The league has to consider the case as it was agreed upon, or the problem of retroactive league intervention is indeed a problem. As it was agreed upon the trade was fair, mutually beneficial, and in good faith, anything that changed is not for the league to retroactively “fix”. That is something to work out between you and Mr. Kirby.

 

I find this an enjoyable debate and I’ll hope to look for a few legal opinions later, but class in 10 minutes means its time to go.

 

Is my position really surprising based on my team name? Why would I give a governing body the power to make decisions for us?

 

Sincerely,

 

Welfare Tyranny

 

 

 

rebuttal against trade

 

 

 

Well on looking at the particular case again I think you did a good job arguing it – it doesn't really support my cause. I would have said that the misrepresentation came into play because Bowe had the suspension looming for most of the season and it was just a matter of time before it took effect – therefore, while I had a reasonable expectation of getting a player who would be in my lineup for giving one away, I was actually buying damaged goods before the contract had been made, which I found out about the next day.

 

But I could find other things that support the same idea I tried to express that the trade was made unfair due to a freak occurrence, and that my immediate attempt to notify Mike and the commissioner during the pending period did nothing, so that now we have to argue it out after the fact. Check out “implied warranty”:

 

a contract law term for certain assurances that are presumed to be made in the sale of products or real property, due to the circumstances of the sale. These assurances are characterized as warranties irrespective of whether the seller has expressly promised them orally or in writing. They include an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, an implied warranty of merchantability for products, implied warranty of workmanlike quality for services, and an implied warranty of habitability for a home.

 

An implied warranty is one that arises from the nature of the transaction, and the inherent understanding by the buyer, rather than from the express representations of the seller.

 

The warranty of merchantability: “For example, a fruit that looks and smells good but has hidden defects would violate the implied warranty of merchantability if its quality does not meet the standards for such fruit "as passes ordinarily in the trade"”.

 

So the real issue at stake is if the consumer has any power to correct a deal that turned out to be significantly unfair to them. I am saying, during the pending period, they should have every right to do so. You're right in arguing that a contract was made and that both parties assumed the risks, so that the contract cannot be void as if there was shady dealing, but that's not what I'm arguing – I'm saying that the contract is voidable – able to be cancelled, because after the contract was made and before the goods were delivered the fairness of the trade had changed. That's what the league has always voted on - apparent fairness. It's silly to say that votes should ignore the latest injury or suspension news and try to date to the time the agreement was reached, which is only known to the person who accepts the offer anyway.

 

To me the issue with this trade is really how to protect, and if it is possible to protect, the individual owner from being screwed over during the pending period of a trade, and given your political stance against bureaucratic inefficiency I'm sure you can relate. “Why would I give a governing body the power to make decisions for us?” you say, and I agree completely: why would I have to be dependent on league votes to recognize my trade has been made unfair when I can see it right away? The voting system in this case missed the boat by not voting just as it did in your original trade to Mike by voting, and that's why we have this forum to air our grievances, have other people weigh in, and ultimately take it to the commissioner's decision. Two league members have already agreed with my stance that I have a reasonable cause to have the trade called off. I am finding the argument here interesting and getting Forsett back will probably be hugely anticlimactic, but I think it's a mistake if it doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the trade is agreed upon from both sides the only thing that stops it is a veto. The contract has been signed. Tough luck on the Bowe owner. But shit happens.

 

All those paragraphs you just posted is meaningless. The trade stands. There is no other answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think the league should have the right to veto anyway. The commish should approve the trade and it should be done. Both parties agreed and it is over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i might be a loser for having read all of those arguments, but its pretty hilarious how into fantasy football the guys in your league are. im assuming this league is a majority of lawyers. haha. i would hate to be the commissioner of that league right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is simple. The trade stands. If I were the bowe owner I would make the trade back in good faith. It's on the bowe owner to fix it if he wants to. If he doesn't want to then it's just tough luck. If the trade would have went through a day earlier and bowe then gets suspended, there's no argument. But since it just so happened on the pending day, there's an argument. Forsett owner is skrewed, bowe owner got lucky. It happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this should fall on the Commissioner and he should have the stones to make a decision and stand by it ~ the sooner the better. It's a chance to set a precedent for the league and reverse a trade that clearly should be reversed.

 

In the NFL when a trade happens and the player is sent to the other team he still has to pass a physical ~ if it was found that he was juicing the receiving party could send him back. So why not in fantasy football? There's precedent here directly in the league that we play fantasy football in so you can use that as firm footing to reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My response is this: too freaking bad. The trade went through and was approved, there's nothing that can or should be done about it. That's the chance you take with trades!

 

If I were to trade for Ced Benson now and if tomorrow it turns out he's done for the season that's the chance I took. Granted it's known he's injured but still, similar concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as someone who is thinkin about law school i actually enjoyed that mess. but fantasy football is not supposed to be that complicated.

 

my guess is 90% or more of any real fantasy players will tell you that this is a case of tough crap. and they are all correct. deal got done its up to league to vote and whether they ignored or just thought it was funny or whatever they didnt. your guys fault for having a veto system like that anyway.

 

however, i do think it is kind of a bush league move on the bowe owners part. im assuming your playing with a bunch of friends/people you know. bowe owner is being highly dooshy in my opinion.

 

in my best league with bunch of people im friends with we had similar situation with boldin this yr. he got traded and then found out was hurt. this was actually few days after fact of trade. the original owner had no reason to feel bad or to do anything. but since they hadnt played boldin yet and trade had gone through like 2 days prior he offered to recind the trade. that is an extreme case and for record it was not recinded as the other owner manned up and sayed sh!t happens.

 

in your particular case. commish has nothing to do. but the bowe owner should have offered to recind the trade in first place just as a matter of not trying to be a doosh to your friends.

 

 

just my .02 cents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this should fall on the Commissioner and he should have the stones to make a decision and stand by it ~ the sooner the better. It's a chance to set a precedent for the league and reverse a trade that clearly should be reversed.

 

In the NFL when a trade happens and the player is sent to the other team he still has to pass a physical ~ if it was found that he was juicing the receiving party could send him back. So why not in fantasy football? There's precedent here directly in the league that we play fantasy football in so you can use that as firm footing to reverse.

 

The NFL is not the same as Fantasy Football. HTH

 

There is a precedent in Fantasy Football for this. You accpet a trade and it's final. Pretty damn simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moment one offered, and the other accepted, this was a done deal. Waiting period, voting period, wife's period...doesn't matter. While I think the guy that offered Bowe and received Forsett should (as mentioned) in good faith trade back, there's nothing that say he has to. If the guy who had Bowe somehow knew ahead of time that he was facing suspension and made the trade with that knowledge, well, even that falls as responsibility of the other part to do their due diligence. Officially, trade stands. Unofficially, guy now with Forsett should trade him back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely disagree with the "tough ######" argument.

 

I don't beleive in veto's or that trades must be "fair" and I am firmly in the camp that if two owners want to make a decision for their clubs then they should be able to do it.

 

But I think this board is so anti trade veto that its not thinking about the facts here.

 

Two owners agreed on a trade. Material information came out after the fact and BEFORE the trade was processed that completely altered the trade. It wasn't AFTER the trade went through it was before the pending approval.

 

This information could not have been known or factored in at all by either trading party. It wasn't a case of "you knew you were taking a risk".

 

It's not like Bowe was nursing an injury then out of nowhere was put in IR. I would take the other side if those were the facts. This was an issue that could not have been known at all at the time of the transaction. And it's not that the trade was processed then the news broke. The news came out during the approval phase.

 

The commissioner without question should reverse the trade and explain it to the league why. This is what commissioners are for....tough decisions that won't make everyone happy but are in the interest of fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two owners agreed on a trade. Material information came out after the fact and BEFORE the trade was processed that completely altered the trade. It wasn't AFTER the trade went through it was before the pending approval.

 

Here's where the difference of opinion lies. The way I see it, the trade was already processed. That's why the owners are unable to cancel the request during the period where other owners can veto it. Owners would be allowed to cancel the pending trade if the trade wasn't considered done between the 2 owners until the waiting period was over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have an issue in our league. During trades, we have a 1 day period where an agreed upon trade is pending. The league can veto the trade during that time. The traders cannot retract their trade during this time.

 

Recently, Dwayne Bowe was traded for Forsett. Toward the end of the trade's pending period, it was announced that Dwayne Bowe was suspended and the team that traded Forsett wanted to retract the trade. The trade did not get vetoed and went through but the Forsett trader wants a special retraction done by the commissioner because of the circumstances.

 

What do you think? I will post some arguements made on our message board. The arguements are being made lawyer style.

 

Tough ish!

 

Tell the Forsett trader to go kick rocks! That is the nature of the beast!

 

Send him a Whizzinator as a get well soon present!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely disagree with the "tough ######" argument.

 

I don't beleive in veto's or that trades must be "fair" and I am firmly in the camp that if two owners want to make a decision for their clubs then they should be able to do it.

 

But I think this board is so anti trade veto that its not thinking about the facts here.

 

Two owners agreed on a trade. Material information came out after the fact and BEFORE the trade was processed that completely altered the trade. It wasn't AFTER the trade went through it was before the pending approval.

 

This information could not have been known or factored in at all by either trading party. It wasn't a case of "you knew you were taking a risk".

 

It's not like Bowe was nursing an injury then out of nowhere was put in IR. I would take the other side if those were the facts. This was an issue that could not have been known at all at the time of the transaction. And it's not that the trade was processed then the news broke. The news came out during the approval phase.

 

The commissioner without question should reverse the trade and explain it to the league why. This is what commissioners are for....tough decisions that won't make everyone happy but are in the interest of fairness.

Actually, the trade was processed...it was in the approval phase. 2 completely different phases of the trade process. The 2 owners proposed and accepted the trade, so at this point they are completely out of the process and all that was pending was the league vote. And that vote is based on fairness of the trade, NOT injuries, suspensions, etc. that come up during this approval time. So I disagree with your argument.

 

This trade should 100%, without a doubt, stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No way I'm reading all of that unless you send me a retainer!

 

By the way, this is NOT a "legal" issue. It's just a FF issue and a pretty simple one at that.

 

The rule is no retractions. Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well heres what happened in my league recently and its similar to this situation

 

there is a guy who is an extreme buy low guy, ie everytime a player gets hurt he sends out an offer for him.

 

So this sunday during the games I get an offer of Slaton for Ronnie Brown. I wait a few hours to here info, and nothing really comes out, around midnight I accept the trade, figuring if he was getting carried off, he would miss some substantial time. Our league processes trades immediately unless a player invovled has played that day, so at 12:05 monday morn I could accept. I did.

 

Tues Ronnie is placed on IR...Trade stands...tough ###### for him. He hasnt made one complaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have an issue in our league. During trades, we have a 1 day period where an agreed upon trade is pending. The league can veto the trade during that time. The traders cannot retract their trade during this time.

 

Recently, Dwayne Bowe was traded for Forsett. Toward the end of the trade's pending period, it was announced that Dwayne Bowe was suspended and the team that traded Forsett wanted to retract the trade. The trade did not get vetoed and went through but the Forsett trader wants a special retraction done by the commissioner because of the circumstances.

 

What do you think? I will post some arguements made on our message board. The arguements are being made lawyer style.

 

 

Injuries and suspensions can happen at any time. You NEVER reverse a trade for either.....PERIOD!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back to the beginning of the season and do change the rule to do away with asinine focking trade vetoes. Leagues that do that are full of retards heading by King Retard - their Commissioner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No way I'm reading all of that unless you send me a retainer!

 

By the way, this is NOT a "legal" issue. It's just a FF issue and a pretty simple one at that.

 

The rule is no retractions. Done.

 

Trade stands.

 

If you guys see a problem here - then change the rule next year to allow withdrawals anytime during the 1-day approval period.

 

But realize - You will be opening all sorts of issues when you allow trades to be withdrawn after being made and waiting for the vote.

 

 

 

It's your rule - so live with it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×